very much so. There are many who believe in limiting government to helping themselves and only those they identify with. Many that call themselves Christian seem to act as if Jesus would have said, "sorry sick person, i can't help you." I'm not overly religious but if not constitutional how about religious grounds? Civic grounds? Moral Grounds? I think there are many reasons in addition to constitutional grounds.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
...
Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity.

Even if we take that as true i think it's safe to argue they likely give overwhelmingly to causes that they identify with. I think its still an us vs. them issue. Charity is far from a a wholly altruistic act. I doubt you see them giving equally to the United Negro College fund. I don't think merely giving to charity makes someone unselfish.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

And just what "more" is going on? Reality, not idealistic donations to charity, is what that person needs. Real assistance, not community fundraisers. I think there is a lack of empathy among many conservatives, but there's also a lack of empathy for everyone who has their own insurance and never has to deal with the problems of inadequate or unavailable insurance. There seems to be some attitude about the uninsured that they aren't deserving, that they don't work hard enough (because the vast majority of them are working) and that they bring it on themselves. They don't. And they don't deserve a country that ignores their physical and financial health. The US is better than that, indeed.

Idealistic donations and charity are what "really" feed millions of people every day. In my estimation, a bigger and hungrier state makes people more selfish rather than less. It makes people more reliant rather than less. And there's no getting around the fact that his reform is going to make a much bigger and hungrier state.

Idealistic donations and charity are what "really" feed millions of people every day. In my estimation, a bigger and hungrier state makes people more selfish rather than less. It makes people more reliant rather than less. And there's no getting around the fact that his reform is going to make a much bigger and hungrier state.

Yeah, I'm not complaining about those that give of their time and money to help feed the poor. It's an important help. But one ICU admission would feed a family of four for several years. And unlike food banks, etc., there isn't an easy way to determine who gets what in terms of donations for health care. I also realize that by "hungry" you're not talking about just hunger, but I haven't seen Medicare recipients becoming more and more selfish and demanding more and more. Hasn't happened, and there's the biggest example of a public option that exists.

-Coverage for approximately 30 Million more Americans, via a privately run "exchange" buy-in, run by . The lack of a public option / Medicare buy-in, while not perfect, addresses the concerns of a government-run health system.
-Elimination of annual and lifetime insurance caps.
-Sets a minimum of 80% of insurance premiums that must go directly to patient care.
-Denying children with pre-existing conditions barred immediately, adults in 2014
-States would be permitted to ban insurance coverage of abortions in policies sold in the exchange, except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. In states where such coverage is permitted, consumers must notify their insurance company they want it, and pay for it separately.
-According to the non-partisan CBO, it will reduce the deficit by $132M over the next 10 years, and more in the next decade.
-No apparent signs of death panels, concentration camps for conservatives, or mind-control implants in people's heads.

Not everything that progressives want. Addresses the deficit and abortion concerns, of moderates. Conservatives should be happy that their angst over a "government run system" has been eliminated. I'm sure that some will continue to gripe (and I'm equally sure that, despite the elimination of many of the biggest concerns of the GOP, not a single one with vote for it), but compromise can be a good thing.

I hope that the Senate and House can pull their two versions together and get this done.

Its about the amount of control they would have over you. They could cut you off from your bank acount and society with a flip of a switch. And before you try to use big words we already have Centralized Medical Records. And if you are a doctor you already have access to that info, you are just a sheep in this world I do not expect for everyone to understand. But you are so blind I'm sure you don't realise we are all slaves. Do you even know who you pay your income tax to?

I would like to congratulate doctors like davidra who, based upon the CBO numbers, assume that doctors will accept 21% lower fees in 2011. I applaud doctors who are willing to continue to accept Medicare patients and take less money!

What? You say this was supposed to happen in the past but Congress rarely follows through? Well then how can the CBO numbers be accurate? This is quite confusing. The CBO is basing their analysis on cuts that won't actually occur? Hmmm, sounds interesting.

PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

I would like to congratulate doctors like davidra who, based upon the CBO numbers, assume that doctors will accept 21% lower fees in 2011. I applaud doctors who are willing to continue to accept Medicare patients and take less money!

Well you obviously missed my sarcasm of me believing the cuts to Medicare reimbursments would actually occur, but it is my understanding that the recent CBO numbers still assume they will occur.

When all is said and done, it will be interesting to see what paybacks will be uncovered to buy the votes needed. Apparently Obama has changed the way things are done in DC....oh wait....I think that is business as usual. Oh well, yet another Obama promise down the tubes.

PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Well you obviously missed my sarcasm of me believing the cuts to Medicare reimbursments would actually occur, but it is my understanding that the recent CBO numbers still assume they will occur.

I believe that the CBO would have noticed the change. What is the source of your understanding?

Apparently Obama has changed the way things are done in DC....oh wait....I think that is business as usual. Oh well, yet another Obama promise down the tubes.

And you're blaming him for that? There's plenty of blame to go around on that subject.

Unlike what folks on the Internet claim, he's not a dictator, who can remove any Congressional fools who refuse to engage in adult behavior. It's hard to be bipartisan when the other side refuses to even have discussions, and are ignoring the needs of real people in order to plot his "Waterloo".

And, of course, trying to keep an open tent group like the Dems is a bit like herding kittens.

I believe that the CBO would have noticed the change. What is the source of your understanding?

Well....shoot....the only thing I can provide is the letter dated December 19, 2009 from CBO to the "Honorable Harry Reid". Page 1, paragraph 2: "substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to
the growth rates projected under current law)". Page 10 of that document references a more detailed view of the assumed Medicare payment reductions. Here is the link to that document:

So....as I said in my earlier post, I do appreciate the doctors and hospitals who are willing to take on more patients for less money. Although you said the medicare reductions were thrown out, apparently someone forgot to tell the CBO this. Oops.

PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

"It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Well....shoot....the only thing I can provide is the letter dated December 19, 2009 from CBO to the "Honorable Harry Reid". Page 1, paragraph 2: "substantially reduce the growth of Medicare’s payment rates for most services (relative to
the growth rates projected under current law)". Page 10 of that document references a more detailed view of the assumed Medicare payment reductions. Here is the link to that document:

So....as I said in my earlier post, I do appreciate the doctors and hospitals who are willing to take on more patients for less money. Although you said the medicare reductions were thrown out, apparently someone forgot to tell the CBO this. Oops.

That's funny. What I see on page 10 is the following:

Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most
services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians’ services), yielding
budgetary savings of $186 billion over 10 years. (That calculation excludes
interactions between those provisions and others—namely, the effects of those
changes on payments to Medicare Advantage plans and collections of Part B
premiums.)

I don't exactly understand the reducing payments to DSH; I think that refers to money provided for indigent care, since the number of indigents will be decreased. Regardless, I think it's pretty blase of you to think the AMA was going to allow a 21% decrease in physician payments....even if some of us think it might not be a bad idea if applied appropriated, or at least some redistribution of reimbursements occurred.

In any event, this is only a start. Like Medicare when it was first passed, there will be many changes.

And if you read it, the CBO states that the correction has no impact on the next decade, and would reduce the deficit slightly less in 2019-2029....not that it wouldn't reduce the deficit significantly. Spin it however it makes you comfortable, but that correction wasn't a big one.

From your source (emphasis mine):

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) corrected its estimate of the Senate health bill's costs on Sunday, saying it would reduce deficits slightly less than they'd predicted...The error reflects the greater uncertainty the CBO has about the bill's effects in its second decade, the director said, but said that the correction represents a "small share" of the expected deficit reductions in the health bill.

Well....shoot....that says exactly the opposite of what his understanding was. I guess nobody forgot to tell the CBO after all. I'm sure Clem will appreciate having the actual facts, and it will allay his concerns about the bill.

I want to make sure that all advocates are aware of the fraud they are advocating so that they can be held accountable in the future for the damage begged for. And that's really it, isn't it? These politicians and their petty little supporters aren't ever held accountable for what they do.

The CBO's analysis isn't likely to be worth the paper its printed on, because the whole process (from Congress, not CBO) is a fraud. The American people are being victimized once again by politicians who believe they can do whatever they want--as long as they can convince enough people (which apparently is about 30-40% these days) that they are going to "help" someone.

Typical conservative rant. You all demand the "facts" but when people give you "facts," you discount them when they don't support your way of thinking.

Yes, clearly you are considering all the facts stated in there.

Originally Posted by zelgo

Is this why to will accept a ranting of a shaky WSJ editorial over a CBO report?

If the CBO wasn't objective, wouldn't it have said that the country could have saved billions more than the CBO said? Would it have changed its conclusion to say it was wrong and that it will actually cost a bit more than it originally concluded? This is after it showed previous iterations of the bill would cost alot and therefore would not be passable.

Wow, your lack of comprehension would be amazing, if I didn't already realize that you don't deal with facts.

Did I say anything about the CBO not being objective? I didn't criticize the CBO (and many other times I've referred specifically to having no problem with them). Rather the Congress provides information in the way they want. The CBO is not an investigative Oversight entity--they are essentially calculators.

Originally Posted by zelgo

Wow, the CBO is a tricky organization with all its cloak and dagger stuff...

...because the whole process (from Congress, not CBO) is a fraud.

See that quickdraw--NOT the CBO, but CONGRESS is the source of the Fraud I point to. Somehow however, you think I'm attacking the CBO. Or more likely, you are pursuing a straw man.

Originally Posted by zelgo

Of course, in your head, it's all part of some liberal conspiracy to confuse the public.

Not a conspiracy--when are you people going to understand the difference between something secret and not. There is no secret here--just liars telling people things that are untrue--right out in the open, hoping the public as a whole are as stupid as their supporters.

Tiresome ranting as always. The fact is very simple: whether you consider this a fraud, a godsend, or a disaster, it's better than the disaster that is the status quo. That's the disaster republicans root for; no change at all. This is worlds better than that. And it will be better.

Congress also see the big picture that we're headed for financial ruin if we don't do something. Congress knows it will have trouble getting re-elected if they fail to pass what it was elected to pass. If they don't pass it, Republicans will campaign that this was a do-nothing Congress after Repubs tried everything to stall the process--just like with civil rights legislation.

What Civil Rights Legislation? Are you again lying about the Civil Rights Act under Johnson--the one I already pointed out your ignorance about? You know--the one that had 80% Republican support vs 60% Democrat? That one?

Really--how do people like you keep all your falsehoods straight? Or don't you even bother?

Tiresome ranting as always. The fact is very simple: whether you consider this a fraud, a godsend, or a disaster, it's better than the disaster that is the status quo. That's the disaster republicans root for; no change at all. This is worlds better than that. And it will be better.

Yes, when someone opposes you it is "ranting." It must be nice to rely so much on NOT considering opposing views.

You have no idea whether this will be better than the "status quo" and are blindly pushing forward that it will be--no matter the cost, or the damage it could do. You can't predict the future any better than I can.

You've got nothing more than "the grass is always greener." Denying that government has time after time demonstrated their wastefulness, and inability to actually solve problems, you blindly keep following them.